LongLiveYorke 38 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Apparently Obama wanted to stay, but Iraq wouldn't give our soldiers diplomatic immunity from their laws, so he decided to pull out at the end of this year.Yeah, apparently their negotiations pretty much completely broke down, which I'm okay with. One can always say that we need to stay slightly longer to ensure stability, and then slightly longer than that, and then longer than that, etc. Look what happened in Afghanistan. I'm happy to have this clean break. Like a band-aid.ps. It might mention that in the article you posted, I didn't read it.I'm not entirely convinced it was necessary to point this out but, uh, thanks, I guess... Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 Obama's drones assasinate US-born 16 y/o kid for the sins of his dad. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Obama's drones assasinate US-born 16 y/o kid for the sins of his dad.So, lets look at the facts and see if that characterization has any basis in fact. According to his relatives, [the 16 year old] left the family home in the Sana'a area on Sept. 15 in search of his fugitive father who was hiding out with his tribe, the Awalak, in the remote, rugged southern province of Shabwa. Days after the teenager began his quest, however, his father was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Then, just two weeks later, the Yemeni government claimed another air strike killed a senior al-Qaeda militant. [The 16 Year Old], his teenage cousin and six others died in the attack as wellSo, the son of a prominent terrorist leader is killed because he happens to be in the presence of another senior terrorist leader.This action was: A) Killing the son for the actions of the fatherB) Killing the boy because he's brown and brown people don't matterC) Unavoidable but toooooooooooooooooootally justifiable collateral damage in a tragic but necessary clandestine warD) B & CThe answer is D. Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 So, lets look at the facts and see if that characterization has any basis in fact.Alternative, macroview question:You become President in 2008 and your predecessor hands you wars in multiple theaters. In one of these theaters your goals are vague at best, and you are fighting an opaque but organized, militant faction of violently religious drug lords who have a safe haven in the (nuclear-powered) country next door where they are able to refuel/reload/recharge etc. Your political 'allies' in the country no longer desire your presence. Any ground troops you send to the area will be engaged in guerilla warfare in rugged, mountainous terrain, again with no clear objectives.Do you choose to fight this war by:A. Pulling all troops out immediately, leaving behind an impossibly corrupt narco-state with no education system and rampant poverty (i.e. a perfect terrorist breeding ground)?B. Minimizing ground troop exposure while utilizing intel to target high level terrorist leaders with unmanned drones, with the knowledge that civilian casualties are likely but can be minimized?C. Pumping ground troops into the hot zones until you wrest control of said areas from your enemies, with the knowledge that many civilian and troop casualties are likely?D. Attempting some form of diplomacy with the enemy?E. Kicking the can to the next guy/gal unlucky enough to inherit this mess?F. None of the above (do tell)? Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Oops, I forgot:G. Living in hblask's libertarian la-la land where everything in your head is utopian regardless of, you know, what's happening in: reality. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 F. None of the above (do tell)G. Create a group of genetically-enhanced rogue superheroes to wonder around the country and do good deeds (some combination of the x-men and the a-team). Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 H. Follow the battle plans left behind by the president who's shoes you are not worthy to fill, including continuing torture, rendition, keep Gitmo open, follow tax cuts, vote for Patriot Act again etc. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Looks like Egypt / the middle east isn't interested in Obama getting re-elected. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumptionwow. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumptionwow.Really messed up. It's clearly a priori worse to eat animals that we could potentially ride. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumptionwow.Wow yes, pretty amazing that it wasn't allowed before since there is no reason at all to not allow it. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Can't believe this is the stuff we can get bipartisan support on. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I accidentally ate horse sometime about a year ago when in France. It wasn't really all that good, wouldn't do it again. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Can't believe this is the stuff we can get bipartisan support on.Strong support from the apple, hay, and sugar cube lobbies. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Really messed up. It's clearly a priori worse to eat animals that we could potentially ride.Next on the agenda: dolphins.Wow yes, pretty amazing that it wasn't allowed before since there is no reason at all to not allow it.Except the whole part about the trade and slaughter being unregulated, right?p.s. I bet 100 pounds of horsemeat that Sam got that news from DN's retweeting of Alyssa Milano. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 .Except the whole part about the trade and slaughter being unregulated, right?Logic fail on this one.The only reason it was unregulated was the gov't didn't fund inspectors. If they didn't fund inspectors for cows then beef would also be unregulated. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Logic fail on this one.The only reason it was unregulated was the gov't didn't fund inspectors. If they didn't fund inspectors for cows then beef would also be unregulated.Yeah, but, it was illegal. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Yeah, but, it was illegal.Correct me if I'm wrong but the only reason it was illegal is that it's illegal to sell meat for human consumption that hasn't be inspected so once they fund inspection it becomes legal.Horse slaughter has been prohibited in the United States as funding for inspections of horses in transit and at slaughter houses was non-existent. This worked because the horse meat cannot be sold for human consumption without such inspections. The House version of the bill retained the de-funding language and the Senate version did not. The conference committee charged with reconciling the two opted to not include it. The result is that it is now legal to slaughter horses for humans to eat. Read more: http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/ob.../#ixzz1f9eeVQGP Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but the only reason it was illegal is that it's illegal to sell meat for human consumption that hasn't be inspected so once they fund inspection it becomes legal.I'm yanking your chain, Bob. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 applebees and every other chain place will be adding 20 percent horse meat if they can save a buck. don't know if that is good or not but i expect it to happen. one horse burger medium please.. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 applebees and every other chain place will be adding 20 percent horse meat if they can save a buck.Do you actually think this, or are you just being funny. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Do you actually think this, or are you just being funny.he's being funny either way Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now